@inproceedings{wang-etal-2026-probing,
title = "Probing the Think{--}Say Gap on Sensitive Concepts in {C}hinese and {E}nglish Open {LLM}s",
author = "Wang, Yu-Chieh and
Yeh, Lang-Ching and
Tseng, Guan-Yu and
Hsieh, Shu-Kai",
editor = "Ranaldi, Leonardo and
Pucci, Giulia and
Ranaldi, Federico and
Valentino, Marco and
Birch, Alexandra and
Zanzotto, Fabio Massimo",
booktitle = "The Proceedings of the Workshop on Open Reasoning Across Cultures Languages ({ORACLE})",
month = oct,
year = "2026",
address = "Budapest, Hungary",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.oracle-main.20/",
pages = "304--315",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-483-5",
abstract = "Open large language models (LLMs) trained under different alignment regimes treat politically sensitive concepts (freedom, democracy, human rights) differently, but outputs alone cannot separate alignment-induced suppression from pretraining culture: a model may withhold what it internally represents, or may simply reproduce the distribution it was trained on. We compare a Chinese-developed model (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) with an Englishdeveloped baseline (Gemma-3-12B-IT) on 360 bilingual, minimally contrastive items with a country-swap control (China vs. a matched democracy, Germany), using Natural Language Autoencoders to verbalize hidden states so that models with incommensurable representation spaces can be compared through text. Both models linearly encode a sensitive-vsneutral direction at the sentence-final state, beyond emotional salience and in both languages. Their behavior, however, diverges sharply: the Chinese model is China-specifically suppressive, justifying restrictions on political grounds far more for China than for a matched democracy, while the English model shows the reverse. The internal side remains inconclusive. Read before the model answers, the state does not support a reliable judgment of whether critical content is present, so we do not claim a think{--}say gap and identify extraction during generation as the decisive next test."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="wang-etal-2026-probing">
<titleInfo>
<title>Probing the Think–Say Gap on Sensitive Concepts in Chinese and English Open LLMs</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yu-Chieh</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Lang-Ching</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Yeh</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Guan-Yu</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Tseng</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Shu-Kai</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Hsieh</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-10</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>The Proceedings of the Workshop on Open Reasoning Across Cultures Languages (ORACLE)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Leonardo</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ranaldi</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Giulia</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Pucci</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Federico</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ranaldi</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Marco</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Valentino</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Alexandra</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Birch</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Fabio</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Massimo</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Zanzotto</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Budapest, Hungary</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-483-5</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Open large language models (LLMs) trained under different alignment regimes treat politically sensitive concepts (freedom, democracy, human rights) differently, but outputs alone cannot separate alignment-induced suppression from pretraining culture: a model may withhold what it internally represents, or may simply reproduce the distribution it was trained on. We compare a Chinese-developed model (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) with an Englishdeveloped baseline (Gemma-3-12B-IT) on 360 bilingual, minimally contrastive items with a country-swap control (China vs. a matched democracy, Germany), using Natural Language Autoencoders to verbalize hidden states so that models with incommensurable representation spaces can be compared through text. Both models linearly encode a sensitive-vsneutral direction at the sentence-final state, beyond emotional salience and in both languages. Their behavior, however, diverges sharply: the Chinese model is China-specifically suppressive, justifying restrictions on political grounds far more for China than for a matched democracy, while the English model shows the reverse. The internal side remains inconclusive. Read before the model answers, the state does not support a reliable judgment of whether critical content is present, so we do not claim a think–say gap and identify extraction during generation as the decisive next test.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">wang-etal-2026-probing</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.oracle-main.20/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-10</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>304</start>
<end>315</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Probing the Think–Say Gap on Sensitive Concepts in Chinese and English Open LLMs
%A Wang, Yu-Chieh
%A Yeh, Lang-Ching
%A Tseng, Guan-Yu
%A Hsieh, Shu-Kai
%Y Ranaldi, Leonardo
%Y Pucci, Giulia
%Y Ranaldi, Federico
%Y Valentino, Marco
%Y Birch, Alexandra
%Y Zanzotto, Fabio Massimo
%S The Proceedings of the Workshop on Open Reasoning Across Cultures Languages (ORACLE)
%D 2026
%8 October
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Budapest, Hungary
%@ 979-8-89176-483-5
%F wang-etal-2026-probing
%X Open large language models (LLMs) trained under different alignment regimes treat politically sensitive concepts (freedom, democracy, human rights) differently, but outputs alone cannot separate alignment-induced suppression from pretraining culture: a model may withhold what it internally represents, or may simply reproduce the distribution it was trained on. We compare a Chinese-developed model (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) with an Englishdeveloped baseline (Gemma-3-12B-IT) on 360 bilingual, minimally contrastive items with a country-swap control (China vs. a matched democracy, Germany), using Natural Language Autoencoders to verbalize hidden states so that models with incommensurable representation spaces can be compared through text. Both models linearly encode a sensitive-vsneutral direction at the sentence-final state, beyond emotional salience and in both languages. Their behavior, however, diverges sharply: the Chinese model is China-specifically suppressive, justifying restrictions on political grounds far more for China than for a matched democracy, while the English model shows the reverse. The internal side remains inconclusive. Read before the model answers, the state does not support a reliable judgment of whether critical content is present, so we do not claim a think–say gap and identify extraction during generation as the decisive next test.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.oracle-main.20/
%P 304-315
Markdown (Informal)
[Probing the Think–Say Gap on Sensitive Concepts in Chinese and English Open LLMs](https://aclanthology.org/2026.oracle-main.20/) (Wang et al., ORACLE 2026)
ACL